Aircraft flat panel display system

ABSTRACT

A flat panel display system for an aircraft display includes a graphics rendering computer for rendering of anti-aliased graphical imaging data derived from aircraft sensors for full-field imaging on a cockpit display screen. A comparator processor independently generates, from the same sensor data, a selected subset or “points of light” of the display screen image and compares the points of light data to the data generated by the rendering computer for the same display screen pixel locations. The minimized processing requirements and simplified design of the comparator processor enable ready FAA certification of the comparator processor, whereas the extreme complexity and processing operations required of the rendering computer make FAA certification thereof unusually time consuming and expensive. The comparator processor checks a meaningful subset of the imaging data generated by the rendering computer for each display refresh scan and thereby obviates the need for the otherwise-required level of rendering computer certification that is impractical or unavailable. The rendering computer may be implemented by commercial single-board personal computer hardware with a replaceable graphics processor to enable ease of use of improved components.

RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims priority from U.S. Provisional PatentApplication Ser. No.: 60/299,108, filed: Jun. 18, 2001.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to flat panel flight instrument displaysfor use in aircraft.

2. Description of the Related Art

It is essential in the creation of graphical primary flight instrumentsfor an aircraft that are to be used and relied upon by the flight crewthat they be of ultra high reliability and integrity.

Currently, the Pilot Flight Display (PFD), Navigation Display (ND) andEngine/Electrical Display (ICAS) systems of an aircraft receive sensordata/inputs on all relevant parameters—about 100 pieces of data, themajority in the standard ARINC 429 serial format. This data is input toan image rendering Symbol Generator and is checked for reasonablenessand validity. The parameters are then appropriately scaled to useableformats, and the commands to create various informational alphanumericand graphical images for reporting the relevant data on a display screenviewable by the flight crew are executed using the scaled parameters;these commands include graphical primitives such as points and lines,pointer, arc, polygon and fill commands, and alphanumeric characters. Atypical display is produced by thousands of such commands that areexecuted on the order of 100 times every second. Each of these generatedgraphical primitives or primitive command elements must then be rotated,translated and their color (e.g., red, blue, green) modified or changedor varied in response to the data signal values received by the SymbolGenerator. The creation, orienting and positioning of these graphicalfeatures for imaging on a screen display require thousands, and commonlytens or hundreds of thousands, of lines of computer code. Once orientedand positioned, each primitive element is then rendered by calculatingindividual display field textels (points) and placing them into an 8million byte pixel map in the video RAM, which is refreshed on the orderof 100 times per second. The data fed to the graphical display screenmust also be anti-aliased to smooth the generated image lines andthereby present to the flight crew a display that is both easy to readand interpret and which rapidly conveys the information that it isintended to represent. Anti-aliasing of display data, however, isextremely computationally intensive—typically 800 billioninstructions/second—since it is necessary to compute the locus of pointsalong each line, arc, etc. and the intensity levels of the adjacentpixels (i.e those pixels adjacent to the computed data points) forsmoothing of the graphical lines and images to be displayed. To avoidthis high computational overhead many such displays useprincipally-vertical scales which do not require anti-aliasing of theimage lines but which limit the ability of graphically-generated flightinstruments to either graphically-depict (i.e. mimic) the conventionalmechanical instruments with which the flight crew is familiar or presentthe flight instrument data in other convenient, legible, easily-utilizedand readily-understandable formats.

The rapidly evolving computer processing and graphics display generationtechnology from the PC industry provides low cost and exceptionallypowerful computing engines, both in CPUs like the Intel Pentium 4 and inspecial purpose 256-bit parallel rendering engines and the like from amultiplicity of companies. The availability of increasingly morepowerful computing engines facilitates the implementation of ever morecapable and complex display systems, since these new systems are capableof executing many more instructions (i.e. lines of code) per second.However, the size of this code and the complexity of the displays,especially in these new large formats, raises in the avionics industrythe problem of having to test all code intended for use on an aircraftto the exacting standards required by the FAA (Federal AviationAdministration) for flight critical airborne equipment in order tocertify the new and improved processor and display subsystems forpermitted use on aircraft. The hundreds of thousands of instructionsthat are executed by such equipment to format and display the criticalflight data are required by the FAA to undergo exhaustive,carefully-documented testing that commonly takes 5000 man-months foreven relatively modest changes to previously-certified systems.Moreover, the low-cost, high performance hardware that is widelyavailable to the public from the PC industry cannot currently be used inconventional aircraft instrumentation systems, because the designhistory and verification data for such hardware is not available fromthe manufacturer, and sufficient support data and testing has not beenor will not be done by the manufacturer to demonstrate its operationalreliability and design integrity.

Current aircraft instrumentation displays use typically dedicatedprocessors and graphics rendering chips that have been speciallydesigned for the particular application. FAA certification is based on adetermination that both the hardware and the software of the displaysystem have been thoroughly demonstrated, e.g. through extensive testingand documentation, to be operable in the intended aircraft flight deckenvironment and with the anticipated flight and environmental datawithout introducing unexpected errors or inaccuracies. Today, thisgenerally requires that the history or heritage of the processor or chipdesign must be fully documented to the FAA and that the hardware andsoftware must be tested by validating data flow through every pathway inthe chip using the entire range of data—i.e. every single value—that thechip would be expected to handle during normal use on the aircraft. Thisprocess requires many, many months of testing. As a result, amanufacturer that wishes to periodically improve, for example, thegraphics processor of an aircraft image rendering computer would spendvirtually all of its time testing the new or improved chips. Despite thefact that current, widely-available, relatively inexpensive,off-the-shelf graphics processor chips are improved and becomesignificantly more powerful and capable every 6 months or so, thespecialty aircraft instrumentation processor chips and software used inthese specialized aircraft displays are for practical reasons veryinfrequently updated or changed to thereby avoid the constant re-testingfor re-certification that the FAA would require to adequatelydemonstrate the validity and integrity of the display data that theyoutput.

Accordingly, there exists a need for an improved graphics display systemfor use in an aircraft and which can accommodate readily-upgradeablegraphics display components and subsystems without adversely affectingexisting FAA certification or requiring extensive recertification of theinstrumentation display system.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

An improvement over prior art aircraft instrumentation flight displaysystems and arrangements is provided by the present invention wherein acomparator processor is used in conjunction with a graphics renderingcomputer processor. The graphics rendering processor—from which thedisplay presented to the flight crew is generated—is operative forgenerating, from data provided by a bank of sensors and otherenvironmental and operating parameters and aircraft inputs, the variouscommands needed for rendering anti-aliased graphically-presented dataimages on a display screen and, as such, is implemented by a relativelycomplex apparatus and data processing engine. In accordance with theinvention, a separate comparator processor is provided for independentlycalculating at least a selected plurality of data point displaylocations and values from the same sensors and input data from which therendering processor generates the images that are to be displayed to theflight crew. The comparator processor then compares its calculatedselect data point values and locations to the corresponding data pointsthat have been generated for display by the graphics rendering processorto determine whether such values and locations are the same and therebytest the reliability of the rendering processor generated graphicalimage for display. If the corresponding data does not successfullycompare, then an error condition is determined to exist and, if theerror condition remains after several comparator calculation or displayrefresh cycles or other predetermined interval, an error indication isdisplayed on the graphical display screen. Since the comparatorprocessor output data is intentionally insufficient for providing acomplete rendered screen display but, rather, is utilized only as anintegrity check on the data produced by the graphics rendering computer,no anti-aliasing functionality is required of the comparator processor.This, coupled with the preferred and intended operation of thecomparator to calculate only the limited number of select data pointsused in the comparison, permits the use of a notably simplifiedcomparator processor that requires far less processing power and fewerexecutable commands to provide its data processing and comparisonfunctions than does the graphics rendering processor by which the imagefor display is generated. As a result, expeditious FAA certification ofthe comparator is attainable. The use of a comparator processor as acheck on the integrity of the graphics rendering processor data alsopermits the ready substitution of upgraded rendering engine graphicsprocessors as such components and systems become available withoutextensive, if any, subsequent testing and documentation to obtain FAArecertification since the associated comparator processor will generallyremain unchanged.

In a preferred embodiment, duplicate flat panel display systems, eachcorrespondingly constructed and operating in accordance with theinvention, are mounted in an aircraft cockpit for independentlysupplying graphical data representations to a pilot and a co-pilotand/or other members of the flight crew, each of whom is therebyprovided with a separate and independently-addressed display screen. Inthe event that an error in the rendering processor data is detected as aresult of the comparison of that data with the select data pointsgenerated by the comparator processor of one of those display systems,the other display system can thereafter provide graphical imaging datato both the pilot and co-pilot display screens to thereby replace thedata determined to be in error or, if necessary, to replace a largerportion of or the entire display screen field.

Other objects and features of the present invention will become apparentfrom the following detailed description considered in conjunction withthe accompanying drawings. It is to be understood, however, that thedrawings are designed solely for purposes of illustration and not as adefinition of the limits of the invention, for which reference should bemade to the appended claims. It should be further understood that thedrawings are not necessarily drawn to scale and that, unless otherwiseindicated, they are merely intended to conceptually illustrate thestructures and procedures described herein.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

In the drawings, wherein like reference characters denote similarelements throughout the several views:

FIG. 1 is a block representation of a pair of flat panel graphicsdisplays forming a dual aircraft cockpit display system in accordancewith the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a block diagram of the symbol generator architecture of thepresent invention;

FIG. 3 is a block diagram of the input/output (I/O) processor of thesystem of FIG. 2;

FIG. 4 is a block diagram of the graphics rendering computer of thesystem of FIG. 2;

FIG. 5 is a block diagram of the comparator processor of the system ofFIG. 2; and

FIG. 6 is a block diagram of the video comparator array of thecomparator processor of FIG. 5.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENTLY PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

FIG. 1 depicts a currently preferred implementation of an aircraftflight panel dual display system constructed in accordance with thepresent invention. Dual control stations, e.g. a pilot station and aco-pilot station, are generally present in commercial aircraft and,accordingly, a first display system 10A and a second display system 10Bare shown. In the herein-disclosed preferred embodiment of the inventivesystem, the display systems 10A and 10B are functionally andstructurally alike and equivalent to each other. For convenience andease of description, a single such system, generically designated byreference number 10, will be described and discussed herein. It will inany event be appreciated that the invention is equally applicable foruse in aircraft equipped with only a single display system 10 and,indeed, the use of a pair of the inventive systems in an aircraft (asshown in FIG. 1) is but one particular implementation and contemplatedapplication of the invention.

Display system 10 includes a display screen 12 such as a liquid crystaldisplay (LCD) or other illuminatable or otherwise viewable imagingdisplay, either specially designed and constructed or, as for exampleknown in the art, containing an array of individually-addressable pixels(i.e. picture elements) capable of operatively generating light at arange of selectively controllable intensity levels. Each pixel in thedisplay has a corresponding address at which it can be individuallyaccessed by control signals to graphically depict, in combination withother display pixels, images such as pointers and other indicators,simulated flight instruments and gauges, maps, terrain simulations,alphanumeric characters, etc. on screen 12, as is known in the art, andis further capable of displaying or radiating a color component such asred, green or blue (RGB values) or combinations thereof. In each displaysystem 10 a dedicated symbol generator or controller 16 generates andoutputs calculated imaging data that is used to illuminate theappropriate pixels in the respective or corresponding display screen 12and thereby create the intended images on that display. The imaging datais derived or calculated by the controller 16 from sensor measurementsand other input data and the like which is obtained from a plurality ofaircraft and environmental sensors or inputs or other aircraft systems,collectively referred to herein as the sensors or sensor bank 18,disposed about and throughout the aircraft for ascertaining or “reading”the current values of often dynamically-varying flight control,telemetry, atmospheric, positional, and other aircraft and environmentalcondition information. The flight control reading and sensor systems mayillustratively include or provide, by way of typical but nonlimitingexample, altitude, heading and reference (AHRS) data; altitude,direction and control (ADC) data; navigational (NAV) data; automaticdirection finder (ADF) data; global positioning system (GPS) data anddevices; aircraft interface unit (AIU) data and devices; traffic alertand collision avoidance system (TCAS) data and devices; enhanced groupproximity warning system (EGPWS) data and devices; and flight managementsystem (FMS) data. As shown in FIG. 1, the display system 10 may alsoinclude or be disposed proximate or used in conjunction with one or moreconventional backup or otherwise additional mechanical gauges orinstruments, such for example as an attitude indicator 21, an altitudeindicator 22 and an airspeed indicator 24.

The dual display systems 10A and 10B are simultaneously operated andoperational such that a controller 16A provides data for rendering ofimages on display screen 12A (e.g. the pilot station), and a likecontroller 16B provides data for rendering of images on display screen12B (e.g. the co-pilot station). As explained more fully below, arouting function or capability of the inventive system allows the datafrom either controller to be displayed on either or both display screensso that, in the event of a malfunction or other partial or completefailure of one of the controllers 16A, 16B, the other or remainingoperational controller may concurrently provide imaging data to bothdisplays 12A and 12B. This feature is indicated in FIG. 1 wherein eachof the controllers 16A, 16B is shown in communication with both displayscreens 12A, 12B.

With reference now to FIG. 2, each symbol generator or controller 16includes an I/O processor 30, a comparator processor 32 and a renderingcomputer 34 communicating with each other via a conventional PCI bus 36.Other bus designs or implementations may alternatively be employed,although as will be apparent from this disclosure the use of aconventional bus design of common use in the personal computer industryprovides particular advantages in the context of the invention for,inter alia, readily accommodating data transfer interconnection amongthe various components of the inventive system as shown in FIG. 2including, in particular, the rendering computer 34. I/O processor 30receives or reads serial data from the aircraft sensors 18, and thatdata is placed in a storage buffer of I/O processor 30 for access by thecomparator processor 32 and rendering computer 34 via PCI bus 36. In thecurrently preferred embodiment, I/O processor 30 incorporates orutilizes a Motorola 8240 microprocessor and has 32 discrete inputs and 8discrete outputs for communicating data between the sensors 18, thecomparator processor 32, the rendering computer 34 and the displayscreens 12A and 12B. It is anticipated that the I/O processor 30 willhave successfully undergone highly intensive FCC verification andvalidation testing—meaning (as is well known in the art and aircraftinstrumentation industry) that every hardware and software pathway andinstruction has been tested using the full range of data to which theI/O processor is expected to be exposed during operational use. Aparallel port bus 38, implemented using by way of example the known IEEE429 bus architecture, is also provided for redundancy and to assurecontinued communication ability between the controller components of theinventive system 10 in the event of a temporary or partial errorcondition or failure of the PCI bus 16. A power supply 28 is alsoprovided, either as a part of or for use with the inventive system, forsupplying operating power to the I/O processor 30, comparator processor32 and rendering computer 34.

A block diagram of I/O processor 30 is presented in FIG. 3, whereininterface components (as for example in the form of one or moreintegrated circuit chips) 42 convey data to and from the I/O processor,and then to the comparator processor 32 and rendering computer 34,through the PCI bus 36 and parallel ports 38 under the control ofmicroprocessor 46. Processing variables are stored in EEROM and ECCRAMmemory 44. It should however be understood that the particular designutilized in implementing the I/O processor 30 is primarily a matter ofdesign choice and therefore may, without otherwise affecting the scopeand operation of the invention, considerably vary from that shown inFIG. 3 and described herein by way of currently preferred example, solong as the I/O processor 30 implements the basic functionality ofproviding the appropriate sensor and input data to the renderingcomputer 34 and comparator processor 32 for operation of the inventivedisplay system.

The imaging data for presentation on the cockpit-disposed LCD display 12is generated by the rendering computer 34 which may, in a preferredembodiment based on currently available technology in the personalcomputer marketplace, be implemented by a substantially conventionalsingle board, PCI-bus, so-called IBM-compatible computer that includes,as shown in FIG. 4, a graphics processor 50 in communication with avideo transmitter 52 and an accelerated graphics port (AGP) interface54. The video transmitter provides rendered video data to the comparatorprocessor 32 for comparison to select data test points (hereindesignated “points of light”), as explained below, and for imaging ofthe rendered data on the display screen 12. The single board renderingcomputer 34, which also includes a microprocessor 56 such as an IntelPentium III or Pentium IV microprocessor, or a Motorola 750microprocessor, is in currently most preferred forms of the invention anessentially off-the-shelf, commercially available, conventionalmotherboard-based personal computer—i.e. a computer not in generalspecially designed and constructed of customized components which havebeen expressly manufactured for the imaging of graphically-renderedaircraft instrumentation and dynamic aircraft operating data andinformation. In particularly preferred embodiments, the graphicsprocessor integrated circuit chip or components (and, optionally, itsassociated support chips and/or components) is mounted on a detachablemezzanine card that is carried on the computer motherboard for readyinterchangeability and exchange of the graphics processor 50 as new andimproved designs and capabilities of these conventional or commercialgraphics processors become available. The graphics processor of theembodiment of the inventive system herein described provides 24-bitcolor pixel word output, i.e. 8-bits each for blue, red and green, whichoutputs (together with a clock signal) are fed to a parallel-to-serialconverter and, thereafter, to the display 12. The single-board renderingcomputer 34 performs all of the processing of the data for generatingand placing of the desired images on the display, including theanti-aliasing calculations required to yield a smooth graphicalrepresentation of the displayed data and images.

Key to the present invention is the provision and use—for generating ofthe dynamically-changing, processor-intensive, fully anti-aliased imagesto be placed on the display 12 and that can then be utilized and reliedupon by the flight crew to pilot the aircraft and maintain uninterruptedsituational awareness of the operating characteristics and otheressential information relating to the aircraft and the environment inwhich it is being operated—of a substantially conventional,commercially-available, off-the-shelf rendering computer 34 using thepowerful microprocessors and graphics processors and supporting chipsets that are readily available in the marketplace at relatively lowcost and which are regularly and frequently updated and improved. Theability to utilize such hardware, e.g. powerful, low cost Pentium-basedsingle-board computers, and to periodically update at least the graphicsprocessors thereof as new and more powerful and capable such processorsbecome available in the marketplace, provides a tremendous and currentlyunrealizable advantage as contrasted with the heretofore-practiced usein aircraft display systems of specially custom-configured and designedgraphics processors and display rendering subsystems and the like. Thesecustom-designed processors are extremely costly to develop and arerarely changed once installed in an aircraft despite continued andregular advances in technology that support the design andimplementation of new processors with many times the power andcapabilities of those already in use. This problem has until nowseemingly prohibited the approach of the present invention—i.e. the useof such off-the-shelf hardware—because of the virtual impossibility ofdemonstrating to the satisfaction of the FAA that such conventional,commercially-available, general-purpose computer systems will providethe error-free operation and high integrity required to justify relianceby the flight crew on their graphically rendered and displayed flightdata in piloting of a commercial aircraft carrying, often, hundreds ofpassengers. For example, even if a manufacturer of an aircraft flightinformation graphical display system were to demonstrate to the FAA thata system based on such a commercially-available single-board computerwould accurately process and image data for every possible range ofinputs encountered (or expected to be encountered) by an aircraft, themanufacturer could not also provide the FAA with data detailing thehistorical development or heritage of the hardware as is required forfull FAA certification of such graphical aircraft instrumentationdisplay systems to assure system reliability, since hardware defects, aswell as software or processing defects, can just as readily result inthe display of erroneous or inaccurate information.

The present invention overcomes this seemingly unsolvable problem byproviding a system that is operative to continuously assure theintegrity, validity, reliability and accuracy of the informationgenerated by the rendering computer for display on the display 12through use of the associated comparator processor 32. In contrast tothe rendering computer 34, the comparator processor 32 is preferablybased on a specialized, custom design and is intended to be fullycertified by the FAA using the most demanding tests and test proceduresthat are currently required for aircraft data graphical renderingdisplay systems. This level of FAA certification testing is commonlyreferred to as modified condition decision coverage (MCDC). Thus, inaccordance with the invention, confirmation of the reliability of thedisplay data generated by the rendering computer 34 is provided by thecomparator processor 32 which, prior to imaging on display 23 of thegraphically-rendered information that is generated by rendering computer34, operatively verifies a meaningful subset of the rendering computerdisplay data to thereby dynamically assure the current and continuederror-free operation and reliability of the rendering computer. Thesubset of display data subject to the verification process—those datapoints being sometimes referred to herein as the “points of light”—isspecially selected to define a meaningful cross-section and set of thedisplay data image parameters to achieve and assure the intended ongoingconfirmation of error-free data reliability.

Accordingly, the impossible-to-attain need for high level FAAcertification of the rendering computer 34 as implemented by the presentinvention is avoided by providing, in its stead, such high levelcertification of the comparator processor 32. The advantage to thisarrangement is that, as contrasted with that of the rendering computer34, the hardware and software of the custom-designed comparatorprocessor 32 is of a relatively simplified construction (with respect toboth its hardware and software aspects) and, as such, the time andeffort required to satisfy the most-demanding of FAA certificationprocedures for the comparator processor 32 is orders of magnitude lessthan would be required to correspondingly certify the renderingcomputer—assuming that such FAA certification of the rendering computer34 of the present invention were attainable under any circumstance.Moreover, because the comparator processor 32 is operable for processingand generating display data for only the so-called points of light, oncecertified and installed in an aircraft the comparator processor need notbe modified or upgraded or otherwise changed or replaced if, as and whenthe rendering computer 34—or at least the graphics processor orsubsystem of the rendering computer—is upgraded or replaced to takeadvantage of newly-available and/or more powerful or capable technologyand chip designs. The data-verification functionality of the comparatorprocessor 32, through comparison of the selected points of light withthe display data for the corresponding display pixels as generated bythe rendering computer, continues to provide a sufficient check on therendering computer display data without regard to any enhancedprocessing power and/or capabilities that may be made available from therendering computer by way of upgrades or replacements of or to therendering computer.

The notably reduced complexity—as contrasted with rendering computer34—of comparator computer 32 is the result of a number of factors.First, the comparator processor is operable for the processing andgenerating of display data for only a predetermined finite number ofdisplay points—i.e. the points of light—and as such its hardware andsoftware is custom-designed and configured for correspondingly limitedprocessing operations. Thus, unlike the rendering computer, which mustgenerate the color and intensity data for imaging presentation at eachand every one of the pixel locations on the display 12, the comparatorprocessor only generates the color and intensity data for a limited,predetermined number of display pixels. For a currently-contemplatedflat panel LCD display screen of 9 by 12 inches having a resolution of1024×768, for example, the rendering computer must provide the imagedata for about 800,000 pixels and update that image data a hundred timeseach second. The number of points of light for which the comparatorprocessor is required to generate display data for each such displayupdate interval, on the other hand, will preferably be on the order ofseveral hundred pixels. In addition, since the comparator processoroperatively calculates the display data for only a finite number ofselected points of light located selectively about the field of display12, it is unnecessary for the comparator processor to perform anyanti-aliasing processing in its calculation of the points of lightdisplay data. Anti-aliasing processing routines are highly complex andprocessor-intensive and the omission of anti-aliasing processing in thecomparator processor notably simplifies the construction and operationof its custom-designed hardware and software.

Thus, in accordance with the invention a second computer, namely thecomparator processor 32, is likewise connected to PCI bus 36. Comparatorprocessor 32 receives from I/O processor 30 the same sensor inputs anddata as does rendering computer 34 but has significantly less intensiveand demanding data generating requirements as compared to the renderingcomputer. Instead of generating the data necessary for imaging ondisplay 12 all of the fully anti-aliased, alphanumerically andgraphically-presented information upon which the flight crew is intendedto rely in operating the aircraft, as is required of rendering computer34, comparator processor 32 generates the display data for only alimited number—as for example between about 100 and 300—of specific datapoints which are used as test or integrity check points for verifyingthe accuracy of the display data that is generated by rendering computer34. It is preferred and generally intended that these “points of light”be selected to coincide with a representative set of points located atpositions throughout the display field at which data for importantaircraft and environmental and situational parameters and indicationsare being imaged at each periodic refresh of the display. Thus, it isdesirable to include in the selected points of light a plurality ofdisplay pixels that are being activated by the rendering computer datato image parts of one or more of, by way of illustrative example,alphanumerically-presented information, graphically-defined pointers andother indicator lines of graphically-imaged flight instruments andgauges and the like, graphical lines and/or alphanumeric characters ofnumeric scales, portions of graphically-imaged map or chart lines orfeatures, and other dynamically-updated display elements. Some points oflight may also be selected to correspond to predetermined static (orotherwise less frequently changing) portions of the display field, suchas on or along graphically-presented flight instrument borders or othergenerally static display features or elements.

What should, in any event, be understood and apparent is that theselected points of light will not in general (or at least for the mostpart) correspond to specific, fixed, unchanging, predetermined pixellocations on the display 12; rather, they will primarily identifyparticular data display elements whose pixel positions or locationswithin the display field will often or from time-to-time change as thedisplay image is repeatedly refreshed or updated. Thus, for example, onthe rotatable pointer of a graphically-imaged airspeed indicator threepoints of light—corresponding to the two ends and an equidistant orcentral or other predetermined location along the length of thepointer—may be defined and, as the position or rotated orientation ofthe pointer shifts with changing airspeed, the specific display pixellocations at which those three data points will be imaged will likewisechange. Similarly, where certain data is alphanumerically presented apredetermined number of locations on each alphanumeric character may beselected as points of light, and the display pixel locations of thoseselected alphanumeric character data points will change as thealphanumeric character changes. Thus, where aircraft altitude ispresented using alphanumeric characters at a particular location on thedisplay, the selected points of light of the least significant digit fora graphically defined number “7”—such for example the two end points ofthe representation and the intersection of its connected legs—willalways be presented at the same display pixel locations, but the displaypixel locations of those points of light will change when the numericcharacter changes to, for example, a number “3” for which the designatedpoints of light may be its two end points and the intersection of itstwo arc segments. Optionally, one or more selected additional pointsalong the curved arc segments of the number “3” may also be defined aspoints of light for that digit, so that the number of points of lightused to check the accuracy of an alphanumeric digit (for example) maychange from update to update of the display field as a function of theparticular digit being displayed. As will therefore be apparent, theexact number of points of light that are used in implementing thepresent invention may vary from scan to scan of the rendered displayfield as at least some of the data being imaged on the display changesfrom one screen update or refresh to the next.

With reference now to FIG. 5, the comparator processor 32 receives theanti-aliased graphics imaging data from rendering computer 34 at a videoreceiver 70 which is connected to a video comparator gate array 74 and apair of video transmitters 72—one transmitter 72 for feeding each of thedisplays 12A, 12B. As noted above, in the preferred embodiment eachpoint of light generated by comparator processor 32 consists of three8-bit bytes (one byte for each of the colors red, green and blue) for atotal of 24 bits. The point of light data bits are stored in a FIFOstack 76 in communication with a microprocessor 78. The data stored inFIFO 76 for each point of light comprises the three 8-bit RGB colorbytes and clocking data identifying the display screen pixel location atwhich that point of light should be displayed; the clocking data is usedto synchronize the comparison of the point of light color data with thecolor data for the corresponding screen display location as generated byrendering computer 34. The data bytes for the points of light are loadedinto FIFO 76 in the order in which they will be rendered on display 12as the display image data is to be fed to the display, as for example bysequentially scanning or tracing across each horizontal trace line ofthe display field.

As shown in FIG. 6, a 24-bit counter 82 receives clock and verticalsynchronization signals from video receiver 70 to identify the locations(i.e. the sweep addresses) on the screen display at which the renderingcomputer-generated imaging data is to be displayed. As the clock signalfrom the video receiver causes the counter 82 to cycle through each ofthe address locations that collectively define a complete imaging scanof the screen display 12, a 24-bit comparator 84 receives the currentaddress from the counter 82 and, from FIFO 76, the intended displayaddress of the next-available point of light data that is stored in theFIFO. When those two addresses match, comparator 84 enables a“qualifier” output to a color comparator 88 which then compares, for thecurrent screen display location address, the RGB color data generated byrendering computer 34 for output to display 12 and the point of lightdata generated by comparator processor 32 and stored in FIFO 76. Thus,when comparator 84 determines that counter 82 holds the address of thescreen display location of the next-available point of light data on topof the FIFO stack, it causes the color comparator 88 to compare therendering computer-generated color data from video receiver 70 with thepoint of light color data stored at the top of the FIFO stack 76. Testaddress counter 86 sequences FIFO 76 so that the address and color datafor the next point of light stored in the FIFO is now placed at the topof the stack for address comparison in comparator 84 and color datacomparison in color comparator 88 as counter 84 continues to sequencethrough the screen data addresses of the rendering computer imagingdata.

In currently preferred embodiments of the invention, color comparator 88compares only the two most significant bits (MSBs) of each of the three(i.e. red, green and blue) 8-bit bytes of the color data generated bythe comparator processor, on the one hand, and the rendering computer,on the other, for the same screen display pixel location. Thiscomparison of only a part of each color information data byte isappropriate and yields a meaningful assessment of the reliability of therendering computer data because the pixel color data generated by thecomparator processor 32, unlike the imaging data that is output byrendering processor 34, is not anti-aliased. At any given display pointor pixel location, anti-aliasing of the initially calculated dataintended for display—through selective actuation of pixels adjacent tothe given pixel location and a corresponding reduction of the intensity(i.e. color values) of the given pixel location to thereby smooth theresulting graphical image—may reduce the intensity of the given pixellocation by as much as three-quarters (i.e. 75%) from theoriginally-calculated, aliased color values of one or more of the threecolor bytes. As a consequence, if at least the two MSBs of each of thethree (red, green and blue) color data bytes generated by each of therendering computer and the comparator processor for a given screendisplay pixel location are determined to be the same, then the renderingcomputer imaging data for that pixel location is deemed reliable.

Although it is currently anticipated, as described above in connectionwith the embodiments of the inventive system herein disclosed by way ofpreferred example, that only the two MSBs of each of the color databytes will be compared in assessing the reliability of the imaging datagenerated by the rendering computer, it is within the intended scope andcontemplation of the invention that additional bits of the color databytes may be utilized in that comparison. Thus, by way of illustration,the four MSBs of each color data byte may instead be compared and, ifnecessary or appropriate based on the anti-aliasing algorithms ormethodologies or characteristics being employed or on any other relevantaspects or factors, the manner in which the results of the color datacomparison are evaluated for determining from such results thereliability of the corresponding rendering computer data may be suitablymodified from that which is described herein. Any such changes in thevarious herein-illustrated and described elements and components andsubsystems of the inventive system, and/or in their interconnections andoperations, or otherwise in connection with the process steps foreffecting the comparison or identifying a successful comparison or anerror condition, that may be necessitated or desirable to accommodatesuch modifications will be apparent to, and are deemed to be within thenormal abilities of, those having ordinary skill in the relevant arts.

As the imaging data generated by rendering computer 34 and serially fedto the video receiver 70 is successfully verified, via color comparator88, against the points of light data generated by comparator processor32 and stored in FIFO 76, the rendering computer data is directed fromvideo receiver 70 through the video transmitter 72 to create theintended images on screen display 12. The video receiver converts theserial imaging data from the rendering computer to parallel form andbuffers it for, respectively, presentation of the buffered RGB data forthe selected (i.e. points of light) locations to the comparator array 74and presentation of the buffered RGB data for the entire screen displayfield image to the video transmitter 72. Video transmitter converts therendered parallel RGB data to serial form and directs it to therespective display 12.

It is generally contemplated that, under normal conditions, only one ofthe video transmitters 72 will be active to operate its respectivedisplay with the rendering computer imaging data. Nevertheless, thecomparator processor 32 is preferably constructed so that, if necessaryor desired, the imaging data generated by rendering computer 32 of oneof the dual display systems on an aircraft can be used for concurrentlyoperating both of the displays 12A, 12B through the respective videotransmitters 72 of the rendering computer. This may be deemedappropriate or necessitated, for example, by a detected failure or errorcondition of the other symbol generator 16 as explained below.

If the color data comparison effected by color comparator 88 for aparticular screen display pixel location determines that the renderingcomputer and point of light data are not the same, or are not otherwisewithin predetermined acceptable parameters of difference thatpredeterminately define a successful comparison, then a comparisonfailure or error signal is generated and provided to the microprocessorinterface of comparator processor 32. Although the system logs each andevery such comparison failure, in preferred implementations the systemmay delay further action (e.g. reporting of the error to the flightcrew) on the detected comparison failure for a period of time sufficientto determine whether the failure is the result of a temporary ornonrecurring glitch in the sensor data or data calculations or, to thecontrary, evidences a possible systemic or other continuing failure thatrenders the data being generated by the rendering processor for imagingon display 12 seriously suspect and unreliable. This delay may forexample be effected by determining whether a comparison failure isidentified for the same point of light data location over apredetermined plurality of display update cycles; since as currentlycontemplated the display is updated on the order of 100 times eachsecond, the results of color data comparisons for each screen displaylocation can be noted for a sufficient number of consecutive displayupdates to enable effective assessment of the error without endangeringthe aircraft or unacceptably delaying notification of a failure eventindicative of unreliable rendering computer data. Thus, by way ofillustration the identifying of five consecutive color data comparisonfailures for a screen location of a particular point of light—which willonly involve a period on the order of 0.05 seconds—may in a particularimplementation be deemed sufficient to indicate unreliability of therendering computer data that includes the point of light location atwhich the comparison failure has repeatedly occurred. An error signalmay then be generated and a visual error indication presented on the oneor more of the screen displays 12 being driven by that symbol generator16 and, optionally, in any other fashion that will be apparent to theflight crew such as by way of an audible alarm.

The error indication may be visually presented on the display 12 in anysuitable manner as a general matter of design choice. As currentlycontemplated, the graphical display portion or imaged gauge or indicatorwith respect to which the data error has been detected may be modifiedor overwritten to evidence that its indications are or may be incorrect,as by rendering a large “X” or “FAIL” or “ERROR” legend over or acrossthe display portion or imaged indicator or by changing the color inwhich it normally appears. Thus, detected errors in the display datagenerated by the rendering computer 34 for one or more points of lightlocations in the graphically-imaged airspeed indicator can be indicatedby rendering a large “X” over the location of the graphical airspeedindicator on the display 12. The system may thereafter, eitherautomatically or in response to pilot or operator interaction,discontinue the presentation of that indicator image on the displayusing the imaging data generated by the controller 16 from which theerror was detected, and replace the indicator image on that display withimaging data generated by the controller 16 of the other cockpit displaysystem, so that the same symbol generator 16 will thereafter supply theimaging data for that indicator image to both displays 12A and 12B.Alternatively, the graphical image of the “failed” indicator—bearing avisually-perceptible failure indication—can be maintained on the display12 which received the unreliable data, with both the pilot and co-pilotthereafter viewing and relying on the display of that instrument on theother screen display 12 of the aircraft dual flight panel display systemof the invention. It is also contemplated that, either as a matter ofdesign or operator choice, detection of an error or failure of anysubset of the data generated by one of the rendering computers 34 mayresult in replacement of the entire display field image previouslysupplied with data from the error-producing rendering computer with theimaging data generated by the other rendering computer 34.

It will therefore be appreciated and readily apparent that a particularadvantage presented by the invention is the tremendous reduction incost, time and effort that is normally required for FAA certification ofaircraft flight display systems, as well as the related ability toregularly update and improve the graphical display rendering componentsof the system to take full advantage of enhancements in availableprocessing power and capabilities at relatively low cost withoutrequiring extensive FAA recertification of the new and improved portionsof the system. The inventive system moreover provides enhanced integrityand reliability of the graphically-imaged data by virtue of the relativesimplicity of the comparator processor (as contrasted with prior artdisplay flight display systems) since less complex operating code isinherently more trustworthy and reliable.

This disclosure has accordingly described currently-preferred apparatusand methods for implementing the display system of the presentinvention. Nevertheless, numerous modifications of the hereinabovedescribed apparatus and methods are within the fully intended scope andcontemplation of the invention. For example, in lieu of or in additionto the LCD flat panel display(s), the output(s) of one or each renderingcomputer 34 may be supplied to a head-up display generator for providingto the flight crew or other user a floating or projected virtual imageof all of some predetermined portion of the verified data from therendering computer. Similarly, the size of the liquid crystal, or otherimaging technology, display screen can be larger or smaller than thedescribed 9×12 inch panel, and/or may present graphical data at a screenresolution of less than or in excess of the aforementioned 1024×768pixels.

In currently preferred embodiments of the invention the renderingcomputer 34 is implemented, as previously described herein, bysubstantially conventional, commercially-available, off-the-shelfsystems typically comprised of general-purpose personal computerhardware and, in some cases, related software for controlling thehardware components and subsystems of the computer hardware. It isnevertheless also within the intended scope of the invention that therendering computer may be constructed, in whole or in part, of custom orspecially-designed components and/or subsystems, and/or associated BIOSand other software, as for example to provide or implement additionalfunctionality or capabilities not generally present in general purposecommercial computer motherboards and/or components and the like, or tofacilitate contemplated future updating or replacement of variouscomponents and/or subsystems of the rendering computer.

Another contemplated modification relates to the manner in which thecomparator processor 32 provides for dynamic verification and assuranceof the integrity of the graphical display data that is output by therendering computer 34 for populating the screen display. As hereinabovedescribed in connection with the currently preferred embodiments, theultra-high-integrity comparator processor calculates and determines thecorrect, aliased (i.e. not anti-aliased) values for a predeterminedsubset of display pixels which are variously located at screen positionson and about the graphical display. The color and/or intensity values ofthat subset of display pixels, as calculated by the comparatorprocessor, are then compared to the values of thecorrespondingly-located screen pixels as generated by the renderingcomputer for output to the LCD display panel or other imaging device toverify that the rendering computer is providing correct, accurate andtrustworthy display data upon which the flight crew can confidently relyin their operation of the aircraft.

Those skilled in the art and now having knowledge of the invention byway of this disclosure will appreciate that the high integrity “subset”data which is generated by the comparator processor for use indynamically verifying the accuracy and trustworthiness of the renderingcomputer graphical display output can alternatively, or additionally,take on a variety of other forms. For example, the comparator processorcan be implemented so as to generate, instead of or in addition to aspecific or predetermined multiplicity of the so-called “points oflight” which denote individual screen pixel locations, a variety ofquickly and easily rendered lines, geometric figures and/or symbols forcomparison with the corresponding screen location data which isgenerated for display by the rendering computer. Similarly, thecomparator processor-generated comparison data may comprise or includecharacter, e.g. alphanumeric character, fonts that can compared as agraphical object with the pixel data produced for display by therendering computer at the corresponding screen locations; the fontpatterns can be stored for use in memory of the comparator processor andaccordingly need not be repeatedly point-by-point recalculated orredrawn by the comparator processor. Likewise, graphical background orgenerally static objects—such for example as what the rendering computerwill graphically image on the display as the simulated dials or bezelsand the like of graphically-simulated flight instruments—can be storedas single objects in comparator processor EPROM or other memory and thenrapidly and readily loaded into an expanded FIFO for comparison with therendering computer output for the intended locations of those dials orbezels. Although use by the comparator processor of such line or figureor object data may require additional processing power for comparing theresulting comparison data with the increased number of correspondingrendering computer data points, the integrity of the overall system willbe notably enhanced by virtue of the increased number of screenlocations being verified for data validity without unduly complicatingthe design or operation of the comparator processor or notablyincreasing the efforts needed to satisfy the highest-level requirementsfor FAA certification of the comparator processor.

The key to the present invention, as implemented in the primarycontemplated application of an aircraft flight information graphicaldisplay system, is the operational division of the display system intotwo basic functional parts—one (the rendering computer) which isresponsible for display availability or reliability, and the other (thecomparator processor) which provides or assures display integrity. TheFAA requires that an aircraft primary flight display system must haveavailability, i.e. reliability, that is comparable to existing systemswith a relatively low probability of loss of function. In other words,the system must be sufficiently reliable to assure continuousavailability of the data to the flight crew for operating the aircraft.To satisfy this first FAA requirement, the software must be verified toindustry standard DO178 level C, which requires that the software mustundergo documented testing to assure that it functions properly and thatall of the software code is executed during its testing.

The FAA further requires that an aircraft primary flight display systemmust meet specific levels of integrity—namely, that it be demonstratedthat the system cannot output any misleading or unannounced incorrectinformation. It will be appreciated that the precertification testingnecessary to demonstrate and document the satisfaction of this secondFAA requirement is much more rigorous than that required to satisfy thefirst requirement of system availability. Specifically, to evidenceintegrity the system software must be verified to industry standardDO178 level A, in which all logic paths must be tested with multiplevalues representing all data values that the system would be expected tosee in use, commonly referred to as multiple condition decision coverageor MCDC. In addition, all of the hardware must demonstrate likeperformance, and the historical development or heritage of the systemhardware must be thoroughly documented.

Since the rendering computer of the present invention is operativelyresponsible solely for display availability, it need only satisfy and betested to the industry standard DO178 level C standard to achieve thenecessary FAA certification, thereby permitting use of relativelycomplex, commercially-available, off-the-shelf computer systems whichcan be efficiently and economically verified to the specified DO178level C standard both as initially utilized and as thereafter upgradedfrom time-to-time with newly available, enhanced components andcapabilities and the like. Thus, use of a rendering computer thatrequires only the less rigorous DO178 level C testing to achieve FAAcertification enables the inventive system to utilize advanced hardwareand software with resulting increased display functionality and readyupgradability as enhanced components and subsystems and the likeperiodically become commercially available after initial installation ofthe display system.

Display integrity, on the other hand, is provided and assured by thecomparator processor which must accordingly be verified to the DO178level A standard to achieve FAA certification. This will generallyrequire custom-designed hardware and software that must undergorigorous, extensive, time-consuming and expensive testing anddocumentation. But because the comparator processor operativelygenerates, and compares to the rendering processor output, only arelatively small subset of the universe of data that is used tographically populate and image the display, and further because in thepreferred embodiments the comparator processor need not performanti-aliasing processing of the data that it generates, its operatingsoftware and hardware is significantly simplified from that which wouldbe required to generate an entire display screen or region ofanti-aliased graphical display data. As a consequence, the hardware andsoftware of the comparator processor can be tested and verified to themore rigorous DO178 level A standard to assure system integrity withoutunusual difficulty. In addition, because the comparator processor isoperative for generating only the subset of comparison display pixel (orobject) data, changes or updates of, or enhancements to, the renderingcomputer will not generally require or warrant any retesting orrecertification of the comparator processor, thereby furtherfacilitating future display system upgrades without unanticipated orunusual cost or effort.

While there have shown and described and pointed out fundamental novelfeatures of the invention as applied to preferred embodiments thereof,it will be understood that various omissions and substitutions andchanges in the form and details of the systems and components anddevices illustrated, and in their operation, may be made by thoseskilled in the art without departing from the spirit of the invention.For example, it is expressly intended that all combinations of thoseelements and/or method steps which perform substantially the samefunction in substantially the same way to achieve the same results arewithin the scope of the invention. Moreover, it should be recognizedthat structures and/or elements and/or method steps shown and/ordescribed in connection with any disclosed form or embodiment of theinvention may be incorporated in any other disclosed or described orsuggested form or embodiment as a general matter of design choice. It isthe intention, therefore, to be limited only as indicated by the scopeof the claims appended hereto.

What is claimed is:
 1. An aircraft instrumentation display system forimaging, on a bit-mapped display formed of a multiplicity ofindividually-addressable pixels at locations throughout the display andactuatable to create images on the display, aircraft flight informationbased on aircraft and environmental sensor data that is input to thedisplay system, comprising: a rendering computer operable forgraphically rendering the aircraft flight information on the display foruse by flight crew of the aircraft in operating the aircraft and forreceiving the sensor data and generating from the received sensor dataanti-aliased graphical imaging data for selectively actuating themultiplicity of display pixels with the generated anti-aliased graphicalimaging data to create on the bit-mapped display thegraphically-depicted flight information comprising a plurality ofdynamically-changeable graphically-depicted flight parameters, eachflight parameter being graphically depicted by rendering computergenerated imaging data visibly imaged at a predetermined location on thedisplay by selective actuation of a subject plurality of the pixels ofsaid multiplicity of display pixels to visually form the each graphicalflight parameter depiction at the display location; and a comparatorprocessor for receiving the sensor data and generating from the receivedsensor data comparison imaging data for comparison by said comparatorprocessor with selected parts of the rendering computer generatedimaging data for the plural flight parameters to thereby validate theimaging data that is generated by the rendering computer for graphicallyrendering the flight information on the display, said comparison imagingdata corresponding to the rendering computer generated imaging datawhich is for use in actuating only a predetermined subset of saidsubject plurality of the pixels of said multiplicity of display pixelsfor visibly imaging each of the flight parameters at the predeterminedlocation, so that the comparison imaging data comprises imaging data foractuating only said predetermined subset of the said subject pluralityof pixels, and said comparator processor being further operable forcomparing said comparison imaging data to the corresponding renderingcomputer generated imaging data for actuating the predetermined subsetof said subject plurality of pixels for each of the flight parameters tothereby evaluate the graphically rendered aircraft flight informationgenerated by the rendering computer for presentation on the display bychecking, from among all of the imaging data generated by the renderingcomputer, only a predetermined portion of the rendering computergenerated imaging data comprising a meaningful plurality of individualdata values of the rendering computer generated imaging data foractuating the predetermined subset of said subject plurality of pixels.2. An aircraft instrumentation display system in accordance with claim1, further comprising an input/output processor for receiving andbuffering the sensor data for transfer of the buffered sensor data tothe rendering computer and to the comparator processor.
 3. An aircraftinstrumentation display system in accordance with claim 2, furthercomprising a data transfer bus connecting the rendering computer, thecomparator processor and the input/output processor.
 4. An aircraftinstrumentation display system in accordance with claim 1, wherein thecomparison imaging data generated by the comparator processor is notanti-aliased, and wherein the comparator processor comprises means forcomparing the not-anti-aliased comparison imaging data to thecorresponding rendering computer generated anti-aliased imaging data ina manner so as to enable, by said comparison, validation of the imagingdata generated by said rendering computer.
 5. An aircraftinstrumentation display system in accordance with claim 4, wherein eachof said rendering computer generated imaging data and said comparisonimaging data comprises color information presented as a plurality ofdata bits, and wherein said comparing means comprises a comparator forcomparing a predetermined number of the plural data bits of saidcomparison imaging data and of said corresponding rendering computergenerated imaging data for validating the imaging data generated by saidrendering computer.
 6. An aircraft instrumentation display system inaccordance with claim 4, wherein each of said rendering computergenerated imaging data and said comparison imaging data comprises colorinformation presented as a plurality of data bits, and wherein saidcomparing means comprises a comparator for comparing a predeterminednumber of the most-significant bits of said plural data bits of saidcomparison imaging data and of said corresponding rendering computergenerated imaging data for validating the imaging data generated by saidrendering computer.
 7. An aircraft instrumentation display system inaccordance with claim 6, wherein the color information is presented as adata byte comprising 8 data bits, and wherein said predetermined numbercomprises two.
 8. An aircraft instrumentation display system inaccordance with claim 4, wherein each of said rendering computergenerated imaging data and said comparison imaging data comprises colorinformation presented as a plurality of data bits for each of red, greenand blue colors, and wherein said comparing means comprises a comparatorfor comparing, for each of the colors red, green and blue, apredetermined number of the most-significant bits of said plural databits of said comparison imaging data and of said corresponding renderingcomputer generated imaging data for validating the imaging datagenerated by said rendering computer.
 9. An aircraft instrumentationdisplay system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said renderingcomputer comprises a commercial, general purpose, motherboard-basedpersonal computer having a microprocessor, data storage and a graphicsprocessor, and wherein said comparator processor comprises acustom-designed apparatus having a microprocessor, data storage and acomparator and is specially designed and configured for generating thecomparison imaging data and for comparing the comparison imaging data tothe corresponding rendering computer generated imaging data.
 10. Anaircraft instrumentation display system in accordance with claim 1,wherein said comparator processor comprises a buffer for receiving fromthe rendering computer the rendering computer generated imaging data,and a comparator array for comparing the comparison imaging datagenerated by the comparator processor to the corresponding renderingcomputer generated imaging data from said buffer.
 11. An aircraftinstrumentation display system in accordance with claim 10, wherein saidcomparator processor further comprises a FIFO stack for receiving andstoring the comparison imaging data generated by the comparatorprocessor and for serially providing the stored comparison imaging datafrom the FIFO stack to said comparator array for comparison of theserially provided comparison imaging data with the correspondingrendering computer generated imaging data from said buffer.
 12. Anaircraft instrumentation display system in accordance with claim 11,wherein said comparator array comprises a first comparator for comparingan address of a display pixel to be actuated by the correspondingrendering computer generated imaging data in said buffer to a displayaddress of comparison imaging data stored in said FIFO stack, and asecond comparator for comparing the comparison imaging data stored insaid FIFO stack to the rendering computer generated imaging data in saidbuffer when said first comparator identifies a successful comparison ofsaid display pixel address and said display address.
 13. An aircraftinstrumentation display system in accordance with claim 12, wherein eachof said rendering computer generated imaging data and said comparisonimaging data comprises color information presented as a plurality ofdata bits, and wherein said second comparator compares a predeterminednumber of the plural data bits of said comparison imaging data and ofsaid corresponding rendering computer generated imaging data forvalidating the imaging data generated by said rendering computer.
 14. Anaircraft instrumentation display system in accordance with claim 10,wherein said comparator processor further comprises a video transmitterfor transmitting the rendering computer generated imaging data from saidbuffer to the display, for graphically rendering the aircraft flightinformation on the display for use by the flight crew of the aircraft,after said comparing by the comparator array of the comparison imagingdata generated by the comparator processor to the correspondingrendering computer generated imaging data from said buffer.
 15. Anaircraft instrumentation display system in accordance with claim 10,wherein said comparator processor further comprises a video transmitterfor transmitting the rendering computer generated imaging data from saidbuffer to the display, for graphically rendering the plural flightparameters on the display for use by the flight crew of the aircraft,after said comparing by the comparator array of the comparison imagingdata generated by the comparator processor to the correspondingrendering computer generated imaging data from said buffer for all ofsaid plural flight parameters.
 16. An aircraft instrumentation displaysystem in accordance with claim 1, wherein one of said plural flightparameters is represented on the display by a graphically-presentedelongated pointer that rotates about a point defined at one end of thepointer, and wherein the comparison imaging data for said one flightparameter comprises the predetermined subset of pixels for imagingdiscrete locations along the length of the graphically-presentedpointer.
 17. An aircraft instrumentation display system in accordancewith claim 1, wherein one of said plural flight parameters isrepresented on the display by a graphically-presented alphanumericcharacter, and wherein the comparison imaging data for said one flightparameter comprises the predetermined subset of pixels for imagingdiscrete locations on the graphically-presented alphanumeric character.18. An aircraft instrumentation display system in accordance with claim1, wherein said comparator processor further comprises means forgenerating an error indication to inform the flight crew of apredeterminately unsuccessful comparison by the comparator processor ofthe comparison imaging data and the corresponding rendering computergenerated imaging data.
 19. An aircraft instrumentation display systemin accordance with claim 18, wherein said error indication isgraphically presented on the display so as to be readily visible to theflight crew.
 20. A method for imaging, on an aircraft instrumentationdisplay system bit-mapped display formed of a multiplicity ofindividually-addressable pixels at locations through the display andactuatable to create images on the display, aircraft flight informationbased on aircraft and environmental sensor data that is input to thedisplay system, comprising the steps of: generating, by a renderingcomputer operable for graphically rendering the aircraft flightinformation on the display for use by flight crew of the aircraft inoperating the aircraft and for receiving the sensor data, from thereceived sensor data anti-aliased graphical imaging data for selectivelyactuating the multiplicity of display pixels with the generatedanti-aliased graphical imaging data to create on the bit-mapped displaythe graphically-depicted flight information comprising a plurality ofdynamically-changeable graphically-depicted flight parameters, eachflight parameter being graphically depicted by rendering computergenerated imaging data visibly imaged at a predetermined location on thedisplay by selective actuation of a subject plurality of the pixels ofsaid multiplicity of display pixels to visually form the each graphicalflight parameter depiction at the display location; generating, by acomparator processor operable for receiving the sensor data, from thereceived sensor data comparison imaging data for comparison by thecomparator processor with selected parts of the rendering computergenerated imaging data for the plural flight parameters to therebyvalidate the imaging data that is generated by the rendering computerfor graphically rendering the flight information on the display, saidcomparison imaging data corresponding to the rendering computergenerated imaging data which is for use in actuating only apredetermined subset of said subject plurality of the pixels of saidmultiplicity of display pixels for visibly imaging each of the flightparameters at the predetermined location, so that the comparison imagingdata comprises imaging data for actuating only said predetermined subsetof the said subject plurality of pixels; and comparing, by thecomparator processor, said comparison imaging data to the correspondingrendering computer generated imaging data for actuating thepredetermined subset of said subject plurality of pixels for each of theflight parameters to thereby evaluate the graphically rendered aircraftflight information generated by the rendering computer for presentationon the display by checking, from among all of the imaging data generatedby the rendering computer, only a predetermined portion of the renderingcomputer generated imaging data comprising a meaningful plurality ofindividual data values of the rendering computer generated imaging datafor actuating the predetermined subset of said subject plurality ofpixels.
 21. A method in accordance with claim 20, further comprising thesteps of: receiving and buffering, by an input/output processor, thesensor data; and transferring the buffered sensor data to the renderingcomputer and to the comparator processor.
 22. A method in accordancewith claim 21, wherein said transferring step comprises transferring thebuffered sensor data to the rendering computer and to the comparatorprocessor along a bus connecting the input/output processor, therendering computer and the comparator processor.
 23. A method inaccordance with claim 20, wherein the comparison imaging data comprisesnot-anti-aliased imaging data, and wherein said comparing step comprisescomparing the not-anti-aliased comparison imaging data to thecorresponding rendering computer generated anti-aliased imaging data ina manner so as to enable, by said comparison, validation of the imagingdata generated by the rendering computer.
 24. A method in accordancewith claim 23, wherein each of said rendering computer generated imagingdata and said comparison imaging data comprises color informationpresented as a plurality of data bits, and wherein said comparing stepfurther comprises comparing a predetermined number of the plural databits of said comparison imaging data and of said corresponding renderingcomputer generated imaging data for validating the imaging datagenerated by said rendering computer.
 25. A method in accordance withclaim 23, wherein each of said rendering computer generated imaging dataand said comparison imaging data comprises color information presentedas a plurality of data bits, and wherein said comparing step furthercomprises comparing a predetermined number of the most-significant bitsof said plural data bits of said comparison imaging data and of saidcorresponding rendering computer generated imaging data for validatingthe imaging data generated by said rendering computer.
 26. A method inaccordance with claim 25, wherein the color information is presented asa data byte comprising 8 data bits, and wherein said predeterminednumber comprises two.
 27. A method in accordance with claim 23, whereineach of said rendering computer generated imaging data and saidcomparison imaging data comprises color information presented as aplurality of data bits for each of red, green and blue colors, andwherein said comparing step further comprises comparing, for each of thecolors red, green and blue, a predetermined number of themost-significant bits of said plural data bits of said comparisonimaging data and of said corresponding rendering computer generatedimaging data for validating the imaging data generated by said renderingcomputer.
 28. A method in accordance with claim 20, wherein therendering computer comprises a commercial, general purpose,motherboard-based personal computer having a microprocessor, datastorage and a graphics processor, and wherein the comparator processorcomprises a custom-designed apparatus having a microprocessor, datastorage and a comparator and is specially designed and configured forsaid generating of the comparison imaging data and for said comparing ofthe comparison imaging data to the corresponding rendering computergenerated imaging data.
 29. A method in accordance with claim 20,further comprising the step of receiving from the rendering computer, ina buffer of the comparator processor, the rendering computer generatedimaging data, and wherein said comparing step comprises comparing thecomparison imaging data generated by the comparator processor to thecorresponding rendering computer generated imaging data from the buffer.30. A method in accordance with claim 29, further comprising the step ofstoring, in a FIFO stack of the comparator processor, the comparisonimaging data generated by the comparator processor, and wherein saidcomparing step further comprises serially providing the storedcomparison imaging data from the FIFO stack for comparison of theserially-provided comparison imaging data with the correspondingrendering computer generated imaging data from the buffer.
 31. A methodin accordance with claim 30, wherein said comparing step furthercomprises comparing an address of a display pixel to be actuated by thecorresponding rendering computer generated imaging data in the buffer toa display address of comparison imaging data stored in the FIFO stack,and comparing the comparison imaging data stored in the FIFO stack tothe rendering computer generated imaging data in the buffer in responseto a successful comparison of the display pixel address and the displayaddress.
 32. A method in accordance with claim 31, wherein each of saidrendering computer generated imaging data and said comparison imagingdata comprises color information presented as a plurality of data bits,and wherein said step of comparing the comparison imaging data stored inthe FIFO stack to the rendering computer generated imaging data in thebuffer in response to a successful comparison of the display pixeladdress and the display address comprises comparing a predeterminednumber of the plural data bits of said comparison imaging data and ofsaid corresponding rendering computer generated imaging data forvalidating the imaging data generated by said rendering computer.
 33. Amethod in accordance with claim 29, further comprising the step oftransmitting the rendering computer generated imaging data from thebuffer to the display, for graphically rendering the aircraft flightinformation on the display for use by the flight crew of the aircraft,after said step of comparing the comparison imaging data generated bythe comparator processor to the corresponding rendering computergenerated imaging data from the buffer.
 34. A method in accordance withclaim 29, further comprising the step of transmitting the renderingcomputer generated imaging data from the buffer to the display, forgraphically rendering the plural flight parameters on the display foruse by the flight crew of the aircraft, after said step of comparing thecomparison imaging data generated by the comparator processor to thecorresponding rendering computer generated imaging data from said bufferfor all of said plural flight parameters.
 35. A method in accordancewith claim 20, wherein one of said plural flight parameters isrepresented on the display by a graphically-presented elongated pointerthat rotates about a point defined at one end of the pointer, andwherein the comparison imaging data for said one flight parametercomprises the predetermined subset of pixels for imaging discretelocations along the length of the graphically-presented pointer.
 36. Amethod in accordance with claim 20, wherein one of said plural flightparameters is represented on the display by a graphically-presentedalphanumeric character, and wherein the comparison imaging data for saidone flight parameter comprises the predetermined subset of pixels forimaging discrete locations on the graphically-presented alphanumericcharacter.
 37. A method in accordance with claim 20, further comprisingthe step of generating an error indication in response to apredeterminately unsuccessful comparison of the comparison imaging dataand the corresponding rendering computer generated imaging data tothereby inform the flight crew of a validation failure of the renderingcomputer generated imaging data.
 38. A method in accordance with claim37, wherein said step of generating an error indication comprisesgraphically presenting on the display a visual error indication.